APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL AND PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

1The Owners wants to construct a sunroom at the rear of the existing dwelling, as shown on the plans filed with the Committee.

REQUESTED VARIANCE

2The Owners/Applicants require the Committee’s authorization for a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.62 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres.

PUBLIC HEARING

Oral Submissions Summary

3Dan Stone, Agent for the Applicants, provided an overview of the application and responded to questions from the Committee.

4City Planner Samantha Gatchene stated no concerns with the application.

5Following the public hearing, the Committee reserved its decision.

DECISION AND REASONS OF THE COMMITTEE: APPLICATION GRANTED

Application Must Satisfy Statutory Four-Part Test:

6The Committee has the power to authorize a minor variance from the provisions of the Zoning By-law if, in its opinion, the application meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. It requires consideration of whether the variance is minor, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, and whether the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law are maintained.

Evidence

7Evidence considered by the Committee included any oral submissions made at the hearing, as highlighted above, and the following written submissions held on file with the Secretary-Treasurer and available from the Committee Coordinator upon request:

Application and supporting documents, including a cover letter, plans, tree information, a photo of the posted sign, and a sign posting declaration.
City Planning Report received October 26, 2023, with no concerns.
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority email received October 26, 2023, with no objections.
Hydro Ottawa email received October 19, 2023, with no comments.
Ministry of Transportation email received October 30, 2023
J. Newby, neighbour, email received October 30, 2023, with concerns.

Effect of Submissions on Decision

8The Committee considered all written and oral submissions relating to the application in making its decision and granted the application.

9Based on the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that the requested variance meets all four requirements under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

10The Committee notes that the City’s Planning Report raises “no concerns” regarding the application, highlighting that “The proposed sunroom is appropriate for the site as it will not detract from the usable rear yard space.”

11The Committee also notes that no evidence was presented that the requested variance would result in any unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

12Considering the circumstances, the Committee finds that because the proposal fits well in the area, the requested variance is, from a planning and public interest point of view, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure on the property, and relative to the neighbouring lands.

13The Committee also finds that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan because the proposal respects the character of the neighbourhood.

14In addition, the Committee finds that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law because the proposal represents orderly development that is compatible with the surrounding area.

15Moreover, the Committee finds that the requested variance is minor because it will not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties or the neighbourhood in general.

16THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT therefore authorizes the requested variance, subject to the location and size of the proposed construction being in accordance with the plans filed, Committee of Adjustment date stamped September 22, 2023, as they relate to the requested variance.

“Fabian Poulin” FABIAN POULIN VICE-CHAIR

Absent JAY BALTZ MEMBER

“George Barrett” GEORGE BARRETT MEMBER

“Heather MacLean” HEATHER MACLEAN MEMBER

“Julianne Wright” JULIANNE WRIGHT MEMBER

I certify this is a true copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the City of Ottawa, dated November 10, 2023

“Michel Bellemare” MICHEL BELLEMARE SECRETARY-TREASURER

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

To appeal this decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), a completed appeal form along with payment must be received by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment by November 30, 2023, delivered by email at cofa@ottawa.ca and/or by mail or courier to the following address:

Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, 101 Centrepointe Drive, 4th floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K2G 5K7

The Appeal Form is available on the OLT website at https://olt.gov.on.ca/. The Ontario Land Tribunal has established a filing fee of $400.00 per type of application with an additional filing fee of $25.00 for each secondary application. Payment can be made by certified cheque or money order made payable to the Ontario Minister of Finance, or by credit card. Please indicate on the Appeal Form if you wish to pay by credit card. If you have any questions about the appeal process, please contact the Committee of Adjustment office by calling 613-580-2436 or by email at cofa@ottawa.ca.

Only the applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body that has an interest in the matter may appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. A “specified person” does not include an individual or a community association.

There are no provisions for the Committee of Adjustment or the Ontario Land Tribunal to extend the statutory deadline to file an appeal. If the deadline is not met, the OLT does not have the authority to hold a hearing to consider your appeal.

Ce document est également offert en français.

Committee of Adjustment City of Ottawa Ottawa.ca/CommitteeofAdjustment cofa@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436

Comité de dérogation Ville d’Ottawa Ottawa.ca/Comitedederogation cded@ottawa.ca 613-580-2436

Marilena Klammrodt and Daniel Marques, 2023 CanLII 152488

Case Summary